Feb 27th, 2009
Posted by Suzanne Ito, ACLU at 2:15pm	National Security

Charges (Finally) Brought Against al-Marri

Yesterday, The New Yorker's Jane Mayer reported that a federal grand jury in Peoria, Illinois was preparing to bring criminal terrorism charges against Ali al-Marri, the ACLU's client in a challenge to his indefinite detention before the Supreme Court. When al-Marri was first arrested, he was indicted by a federal grand jury on credit card fraud charges, but a few weeks before his case was to go to trial, President Bush stepped in, named al-Marri an "enemy combatant," and locked him in solitary confinement in a South Carolina Navy brig for more than five years. Terrorism charges—or charges that would somehow legitimize his "enemy combatant" status—were never brought against al-Marri. Until now.

So while the new charges may not sound like a good thing, they actually are. Al-Marri should have been brought to trial over five years ago. And that's the issue in our lawsuit on behalf of al-Marri: does the president have the power to pluck a person off the street—U.S. citizen, resident, alien, anyone—call them an "enemy combatant," and lock them up without bringing charges against them? We say no.

ACLU National Security Project staff attorney Jonathan Hafetz, who's representing al-Marri, said in a statement today:

This indictment is an important step toward restoring the rule of law and is exactly what should happen when the government suspects an individual of terrorist acts. This case is now finally where it belongs: in a legitimate court that can fairly determine whether Mr. al-Marri is guilty of a crime.

We still believe the Supreme Court must hear al-Marri's case. It's essential that this case is heard so it can be determined, once and for all, that the President cannot do this. If it's not heard by the high court, the appeals court ruling, which asserts that the president does have such a power, stands. And then there's nothing to stop the next power-grabbing President from doing to someone else what President Bush did to al-Marri.

Permalink |	National Security

Tags: Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri, indefinite detention

1. wild Says:
   Feb 28th, 2009 at 2:20am

   I agree with ACLU, and say NO. And while your at this case, could you make those wankers on the SC actually deal with this case instead of religating it back to a lower court. The reason I say this is because of the Boumediene v. Bush case....grrrrrrrrr that some heralded as a victory for Habeous, and I hope your great litagators know now, that I think that SC of wankers didn't do a thing about anything..."nor do we hold that the writ must issue"- That was no judgement in my lay opinion.

   wild;)

2. Paen Says:
   Feb 28th, 2009 at 1:46pm

   This case sounds like something out of the Gulag Archipelago.

3. InnocentAmerican Says:
   Mar 1st, 2009 at 1:14am

   Formal disclosures submitted to Congress have alleged that implantable biomedical devices have been used domestically as sources and methods and that the administrations war on terror and detention policies were actually drafted with the intent to prevent criminal prosecution for domestic use of the technology against Americans. It is easy to doubt that the administration has used implantable biomedical devices for a domestic spy program, however the technology has been present since 1997 under the programs of William Heetderks at the NIH and Col. Geoffrey Ling of DARPA.

   These programs contain what the agencies refer to as "cross-cutting" capabilities in which the biomedical technology applicable to treating the deaf and vision impaired is also applicable to intelligence and military when a back telemetry link is utilized. If Bush didn't physically harm and torture Americans with this, you wouldn't be reading this post.

   What was presented to Congress and the public as "medical technology" was actually a defense and intelligence "Special Access Program" (SAP) holding "unacknowledged" status. Statutory disclosure mandates to Congress were "waived" and unlawfully used funding appropriated by Congress for Children's Health research.

   On March 18, 2008, the Central Intelligence Agency responded to a Freedom of Information Act request disclosing that the CIA's use of the biomedical intellectual property is "currently and properly classified pursuant to an executive order" and that documents were being withheld due to exemption b3, the CIA Director's statutory obligation to protect from disclosure, "intelligence sources and methods". The lack of oversight resulted in abuses including discovery that the government was using the devices for testosterone delivery, had used innocent Americans as research subjects without informed consent, misappropriated federal funds, and contributed to the death of a research subject. As a research subject, I personally experienced physical mistreatment and Physicians have removed some of the devices while some residual devices remain implanted. Civil action has resulted.

   The constitutional and legal questions addressed in litigation filed under seal allege the government used these remaining devices to retaliate against the plaintiff in reprisal for whistleblower efforts, even when plaintiff was confirmed by Secretary of State Deborah Bowen as a write-in candidate during 2008 Presidential Primary election proceedings. This is significant because it has revealed how war on terror policy has been crafted specifically to protect Bush Administration officials from criminal prosecution for partisan and political use of the technology within the U.S. targeting political candidates.

   The civil action challenges the government's claim that Congress authorized the President to use full military force, including the biomedical technology, against anyone, including U.S. citizens or political candidates who have committed no criminal acts, in complete secrecy, without showing any evidence, and for an indefinite period, and may deny these individuals access to legal counsel and without protections outlined in the Constitution and Geneva Conventions.

   In short, the administration was using this technology domestically prior to 9/11 against Americans who had no connection to the war on terror. Obviously, prosecution was a concern and the only way to avoid scrutiny was to retroactively legalize what they had already done. The "ghost detainee" provision included Americans implanted with the devices, "ghost sites" were established dynamically as needed where ever the victim might be, and because the devices are too small to be effectively recovered, the "indefinite" provision was needed. And all these provisions needed to be applicable to Americans, even if no evidence or charges were present, and the authorization to "use military force" against anyone in Afghanistan, Iraq, and "other countries" conveniently includes America. The language defining detainees as someone "in custody of, or otherwise under the control of" the government allows legal protection for Americans who have been unlawfully implanted with biomedical technology during development or clandestine activities.

   Because the administration has used the technology politically, domestically, and continues to deny Congressional oversight, the litigation is necessary to address past abuses, prevent further abuse and establish much needed oversight. This is long overdue. For the last years, the administration has prevented the courts from hearing this case and continues to invoke priviledge to prevent disclosures to Congress including senior Intelligence Committee members.

   Congressional disclosures and FOIA docs have been posted at www.larsonmedia.net

4. Kyle Says:
   Mar 2nd, 2009 at 8:53am

   Was he a citizen of the United States and did he go through the steps to become a citizen. The next power-grabbing presidnet is in office. i hope the ACLU is as hard on him as any other president that has been in office. How about bringing up the liberties of our next generation as they will be burdened with the Obama administrations pork filled stimulus bill. By the way stick up for our military as well.

5. Phillip Bustin Says:
   Mar 7th, 2009 at 12:44pm

   I am an American citizen and I have commited no crime or been tried for any!I am against torture of prisoners for one reason only. I am experiencing the torture of community harassment and some sort of noise torture and burning sensation whenever I try sitting or sleeping almost anywhere I go! The sensation feels like I am in an earthquake and it burns like some electronic signal is hitting me. I know it sounds like I am wack but I have read about sound weapons being used in Iraq and this is the only thing I can equate to what is happening to me; or its the weirdest physical delusion anyone ever had. I wonder if the ACLU is getting any more blogs like this on this type of harassment. My main worry is that during the Bush administration steps were taken via the government to rid communities of people who spoke out againist Bush and Cheney or were deemed undesirable and that we may uncover some secret program..or is it a locally based hate crime? I believe every constitional right I have has been taken away and this has lasted for more than 2 yrs and gotten worse in its intensity. I have been accused of many things during this harassment ...many of which the aclu stands against but like most american my views are complex and my right to disagree and speak freely is a right I cherish most!

Name

E-mail

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.

Homepage

• Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
• Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

What code is in the image? *

Enter the characters shown in the image. Ignore spaces and be careful about upper and lower case.